At first glance, former US presidents Gerald Ford and Donald Trump are two men with little in common. Their approaches to politics and governing could not be more different. Yet they now share a defining experience: both were the target of would-be assassins not once, but twice, in the space of weeks.
Mr Trump has been defiant after Sunday’s apparent assassination attempt, when a man with a rifle was stopped before he could fire at the Republican presidential candidate, who was playing golf in Florida. The incident comes just over two months after the former president missed death by inches when he was shot while campaigning in Pennsylvania.
The UAE has issued a statement strongly condemning the latest assassination attempt.
The incidents echo events from almost 50 years ago. In 1975, Mr Ford escaped injury when a cult member came close to shooting him in Sacramento, California. Seventeen days later, another would-be assassin opened fire on him and missed in San Francisco.
What distinguishes these acts of violence from each other is the context in which they took place. By the time of the attempted assassinations of Mr Ford, the Vietnam War was over and America’s worst political scandal in years, the Watergate affair, was three years in the past. Although still riven by racial and economic issues, the country was looking to the future. The picture in 2024 is quite different.
The polarisation and disillusionment that has gripped American society is profound. According to Pew Research Centre findings from last September, just 16 per cent of the public say they trust the federal government always or most of the time – a level that is among the lowest dating back nearly seven decades. More than half – 55 per cent – reported feeling always or often angry when thinking about politics.
Such anger and mistrust, often fuelled by online misinformation and conspiracies, reached its nadir with the January 6, 2021 storming of the US Capitol building by supporters of Mr Trump, convinced that the presidential election had been “stolen”. Although the authorities are unlikely to see a repeat of such a singular attack, the level of hostility surrounding the presidential election campaign can be seen in a more diffuse way.
Many election officials and other public servants across the country have reported a litany of threats and abuse, much of it politically motivated. In battleground states such as Georgia, Arizona and Michigan the intensity of the vitriol has been such that some officials have spoken of receiving therapy, direct lines have been provided for local police departments and in some cases, offices have had metal detectors, cameras and fences installed. Other federal bodies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, have also reported abuse directed at their employees. Such an atmosphere is detrimental to the functioning of the US state.
According to the States United Democracy Centre, a nonpartisan organisation that supports America’s electoral process, such threats have “forced election officials to flee their homes, put their children in counselling, hire personal security, and in some cases, leave their jobs”, adding that threats can “make it difficult to hire the workers needed to administer free and fair elections”. In January, the Carter Centre – a humanitarian NGO founded by former US president Jimmy Carter and his wife issued a resource guide for election workers to cope with the “constant crush of complaints and criticism that sometimes escalates to stalking or death threats”.
Speaking after Sunday’s incident in Florida, Mr Trump’s rival for the Oval Office, US Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris said “we must all do our part to ensure that this incident does not lead to more violence”. These are fine words but the truth is that the spectre of political harassment, violence and assassination is already present.
The US is not exceptional in this – on Friday, Comoros President Azali Assoumani was injured by a knife-wielding attacker, prompting condemnation from the UAE and others. But the US is still a leading power and to see its political climate descend into one marked by such rancour is troubling. Whoever wins November’s presidential race has a big responsibility to rectify this atmosphere and prevent the normalisation of political violence – even if out of self-preservation.
